Had Enough of Politics as Usual?
Aug 25th, 2008 by admin
Had enough of politics as usual, as Democratic politicians walk the moderate tightrope, wavering on any principles they had left on issue after issue to convince that swing voter?
Voters have alternatives, independent candidates who honor their principles. If enough people register Free Soil when they click on the above image, there will be more. Any woman who registers Free Soil, writing that in for her party on the registration form, will be eligible to vote and run for whatever office suits her in our online convention next month. Men who register and show genuine interest may also vote.
Free Soil is a party of principles, for nonviolent revolution, led by women with visionary bold creative practical plans to clean up the mess conventional practices have created. Whatever myths about Cheryl Seelhoff, the writer known on feminist forums as Heart, or the party you may have encountered, here is the official platform blog of our first volunteer for Presidential candidate. Free Soil ideas of change are of a different bent, concrete, down to earth, revisioning the root, meant to rock the boat, change the rules of the game. These ideas include: to negotiate an end to all wars; shrink hierarchal authority to the minimum required to protect the rights of the people, so nobody dies for lack of means to survive, or has to sell body or soul to get the means; restructure taxation to emphasize taxes on luxuries; abolish role stereotyping, genetic and chemical assault, abuse of authority; revision all the models of reality men have created, creating new ways of relating and doing business without valuing dominance.
Perfect agreement is implausible and unexpected, but if that sort of visionary independent politics interests anyone, we invite one and all to participate in our blogs or Heart for President forum, or free for all forum where volunteer candidates can make statements in dedicated protected forums, or post links.
Aletha, Free Soil Party
A slightly different version of that is in my intro to the list of candidate announcements. I quoted the list of most important issues on the platform blog, so some of my ideas seemed too redundant, and others came to mind. Really, it is not too late. Once a rebellious wave starts growing, there could be no stopping it. Women owe Democrats no loyalty. Women can vote for a woman this year, despite the snubbing of Senator Clinton. Democrats may take women for granted, nowhere else to go, but they will notice if any numbers of women defect. Kick them where it hurts.
Yes, kick them where it hurts. Well put.
Aletha, I don’t really read blogs besides this one, but I did read some of yours, and your writing is just so fantastic! Just wanted to let you know since I didn’t have the time or energy to comment when I was reading. But, I do plan to return for more!
I have a question about the “rock the vote”; this is a form one sends in snail mail to change (or register) one’s party affiliation, yes? I was a bit confused, so I just wanted to clarify. I think I will register with free soil, though then I guess I won’t be able to take part in the Dem. primaries next time around, correct?
Not that I care much at this point, though, honestly.
Thanks, Laur. Describing my writing as fantastic is ironic, since I think I have just been accused of living in fantasyland in that other thread.
As for the primaries, that depends on where you live. Some states have open primaries of various types. In California and I think several other states, independents can choose a Democratic ballot. It is up to each party to decide who can vote in its primary. Now if Heart were to get enough votes so Democrats blame her for Obama losing, Democrats would likely decide not to allow members of the Free Soil Party to vote in their primary. If the Obama campaign deigns to notice my challenge to respond to my article A Case Against Obama Nation, which I sent through barackobama.com last night, or my posts elsewhere denouncing Obama, that could happen anyway.
The Rock the Vote registration widget is slightly different from the standard form one can get at the post office. Aside from the convenience of being able to fill out the form online, whoever posts the widget gets an account which keeps track of the responses.
Well, I just filled out the form, so I should be registered in the Free Soil Party once I send it in tomorrow! How exciting to be part of a party with a platform I can get behind!
I did read your Obama Nation article, Aletha; you have been doing so much work, and it is just sad that there hasn’t been more of an outward response. (As a side note, I only figured out a few days ago how to navigate to the main page where your articles and blog posts are all listed. So hopefully I will read and respond with thoughts myself in the very near future!)
I guess my hope is that Free Soil can get women, including myself, thinking about options for the world (and most importantly, our own lives!) that are outside of the box we are taught to think in. Also, if Free Soil did get to “take to the streets”, so to speak, women might actually get a chance to talk to one another about what they (we) would like for our lives in a way we don’t normally do. It would be connecting, maybe even a form of CR!
I recently read Sonia Johnson’s book where she describes running for President, and she has the members of her audience envision what *they* would do as President! It was a real eye-opener and totally made me smile as I was reading. This world could be so much more than it is now; the amount of suffering on this planet is too mind-boggling for me to even begin to comprehend.
I got a message from the Obama campaign that apparently was meant to answer my challenge. It is hard to tell, since aside from the last paragraph, it looks like the other spam. However, the subject is Response to your message to Obama for America, so it seems this is supposed to suffice:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us, and for your interest in learning more about Barack and his running mate Senator Joe Biden, what they stand for, and ways to get involved. We encourage you to explore http://www.barackobama.com, where you will find these pages:
(List of 13 pages they recommend I explore)
We also link to some news stories on the front page. Check back frequently for new material in all these parts of the site, and special sections highlighting individual issues. You can also read Senator Obama’s books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. The website and the books combine to give you a strong sense of Senator Obama’s experiences, positions, and leadership. You can also make DVDs from the videos to hand out at events in your area.
Barack is running for president because America is facing a set of challenges we haven’t seen in a generation–challenges we haven’t solved because of failed leadership and a smallness of politics that obstructs common-sense solutions to pressing problems. The only way to meet these challenges is to bring the American people together behind a new kind of politics that places our common interest above partisanship and special interest. Senator Obama is confident that his life experiences will allow him to bridge these divides and lead this country.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Sincerely,
Obama for America
What would I have to do to get a real response? The book Obama Nation by notorious Swift Boater Jerome Corsi got a long detailed refutation. Is that the ticket, write a bunch of lies? I do some actual research to put together a detailed critique based on real issues, and this is the response I get? Obama might as well have told me, I should trust him, and not worry my pretty little head! This almost tempts me to carry out the bemused threat I made to the Randi Rhodes forum to tip off John McCain about my article, since the people there were so sure my article was right-wing propaganda! If his minions started making ads from my material, Obama would have to pay some attention!
I suppose this response is better than nothing, and it did come faster than I expected, but I am feeling really insulted.
I think it is very difficult to get the Obama camp to deal with real issues that feminists pose. You can do all the research you want, but they still send out form letters.
One thing I’d like to know more about was Obama’s silence on the committee investigating the aftermath of Katrina. I never even knew he was on a committee like that, and I heard about this on a black radio station that was far more real. It was black people talking about Obama, and wondering why power corrupts so much. It’s what I call the Condolezza Rice Continuum.
We can’t get answers, we try all these heroic third party campaigns, but we will always be frustrated.
The third parties put out such good stuff that the mainstream co-opts them. Socialists evolve into New Dealers… you know the herstorical/historical drill.
The truth is, Obama will be a vasillator, he’ll be easily co-opted. Although his words sound nice, somehow, I feel very distant from that rhetoric. My partner helpfully said to me the other day, “You would have liked him at the age of 20.” And you know, maybe the people he inspires most are this group, which is ok with me.
It’s hard to get out the truth Aletha, and I can see your hard work.
But people will always come back with “form letters” and “thank you for your interest” replies. They have no intention of real dialogue, they’re just going through the motions.
Anti-war early rhetoric of Obama, just listen to him now!! What happened to all of that?
Yeah, it is telling how the Obama camp will jump all over anything they perceive as a smear, but troublesome truth they feel free to ignore or evade. I wonder if anyone in his campaign even bothered to read my article. Perhaps someone did, but could think of no way to respond that would not hurt Obama. Better to pretend I do not exist, that feminists must be friends of Obama because we have nowhere else to go. Good old Democratic Party, taking feminists for granted yet again.
Laur, I have been mulling over some things you said. Free Soil was just a CR group for decades. CR groups were everywhere when I was young, but disorganized, only loosely connected if at all. Now networking is so much easier, because of the web. There could be networks of CR groups thinking outside the box, working together as Free Soil chapters to organize local protests, whatever needs the most attention there at the moment.
Are you the woman going to college at Roanoke whose blog I have on my blogroll has been removed? Has it moved, or am I confused? I imagine you discovered the home link on the blog title at the top. I think all WordPress blogs have that. BTW only the category listings show the whole archive of news stories, going back almost two years now. I am ticked off about missing stories, expired links all over. I am thinking of compiling an archive of the full stories I comment on, so people can read them after the link expires. I do not know if that would be illegal. Does the copyright on an Internet article still hold after its link expires, does anyone know?
This election is unusual in many respects, not just the breaking of the white male monopoly. The amount of suffering on this planet is mind-boggling, but it appears it is going to get much worse before it gets better. This stock market meltdown is scary, but nothing compared to what will happen when the rising sea level gets impossible to ignore. Democrats pretend to have all the answers, just put them in power and everything will be hunky dory! The second part of that Obama expose by Pam Martens I cited is her analysis of The Obama Bubble Agenda, which the old boy network hopes will bail them out of the collapsing credit bubble. The excerpts I quoted were all from the first part, Obama’s Money Cartel.
I am still fuming over that phony response. Every piece of junk mail the Obama campaign sends me makes me madder. It is almost enough to make me want to try to force Obama to respond. Democrats and leftists ignore Free Soil, perhaps for different reasons. Democrats do not want to hear about real issues, and leftists do not want to hear from a party that makes a big issue of pornography. The gatekeepers are determined to keep the debate confined to issues they consider relevant. It makes me wonder if it would be possible to open that gate through the other side of the spectrum. Democrats deny their attacks on Governor Palin are sexist. Republicans are sensitized because now it is their goose being cooked instead of Hillary Clinton. They just might be interested in the perspective of a feminist Presidential candidate furious at the sexist crap thrown at Gov. Palin. They might even be interested enough to interview Heart. I imagine this blog has flown under their radar, but that could be subject to change.
Hi Aletha,
It’s neat that you remember who I am (re: the blog)-I didn’t know anyone was reading it, let alone, had it on their blogroll! I took it down because my heart wasn’t really into it; I wasn’t doing my best writing, and I didn’t have anything substantial to add to the blogosphere. I do appreciate the support in putting it on the blogroll though; yes, it is down now.
I had no idea Freesoil started as a CR group! Soo cool! I totally wish CR groups were still around, but it seems that is really not happening; my generation has internalized the mass media (and what it says about feminism), and is therefore I believe less inclined to participate in CR groups associated with (gasp!) 1970’s feminism.
I think one or two were attempted to start up in my area but there were problems over whether some of the women ID’d as feminists (I was not there so I do not know the whole story).
But yes, CR was basically what I was thinking when I mentioned women getting together and talking above. I guess if I was to recommend to another womyn how to start a CR group, or if I was trying to start one, I wouldn’t use the words CR, just because I think it will discourage women from showing up. Of course, the idea is for all women to be welcome, not just those who already conceive of themselves as feminists!
But yes, if somehow the freesoil website could be used to network, set up these groups, that would be great! It looks like there isn’t much time before this next election–I didn’t realize how quickly it would sneak up–but essentially, I have come to the same conclusion so many others have-the elections are essentially meaningless. Nothing is really going to change, not with all the very serious environmental, economic, and international crises facing persons throughout the globe. Obama or McCain would need to change things so dramatically…and, well, we all know it’s not going to happen.
It would be neat to see the news stories and your comments–I have no idea about copyright issues, though!
I also wanted to say, sadly, I think one reason Obama did not respond to you is that you do not have a “big name” like Jerome Corsi. And yet, this is supposed to be a movement from the bottom up, yes? Errrghhh.
(I did find it amusing they sent you 13 links from Obama’s website. As if those will help you be more politically educated!).
I felt like the Obama campaign wanted me to believe that the issues I raised were due to misunderstanding his positions, and that if I took the time to learn more about him from his point of view, I would be reassured. I do not suffer such propaganda kindly. No doubt Obama thinks he need not respond to a feminist critique, any more than he thinks he need pay attention to leftist critique. When some remark by Ralph Nader made the news, Obama made fun of him, saying Nader is trying to get attention. Republican attacks, on the other hand, those are important and must be countered quickly and effectively. I can see why he would think that way, from the perspective of political strategy, but it certainly does not inspire confidence in him paying attention to grassroots criticism trying to hold his feet to the fire. He is another master politician trying to stay on message and market his image.
I have alluded to how Free Soil was revived on occasion, for instance in About Aletha and this blog. It is sad that young women have been taken in by the media distortion of feminist herstory. It was not that long ago, but this country especially seems to have no sense of learning from history, let alone herstory. Consciousness has been coopted by the New Age movement into a mockery of the word. Sex-positive feminists did much the same to feminism. Language can be powerful, so it makes sense that people seeking to destroy feminism would try to corrupt its language.
I do not really mind having to pick excerpts from news stories. Some of them are rather long, so I pick sections most relevant to the points I want to make. That gets harder with the shorter stories. If anyone wants to read the full story, they can follow the link, until it expires. I suppose these news sites are so big that they have to archive stories, to prevent their store from getting too big and clunky, but what is a commentator like me supposed to do, have excerpts of a story that the original source decides is not important enough to keep available online? I suppose this is a minor issue, all things considered, but it is annoying.
I was thinking the Free Soil message board could be used to network. These message boards can be sectioned in all kinds of ways, so that each candidate could moderate her own forum, or each small group could moderate their own forum. I set up a forum for Heart there last month, but as she has not found time to register, having too many irons in the fire already, and nobody else has volunteered to run, her forum looks kind of neglected and forlorn there.
Hey, Laur and Aletha. Hey, Aletha, I did register for my forum, I thought, when you first set it up, but I guess I did something wrong, because after I registered, I could never get back to my forum! It kept taking me back to the main forum? I meant to ask you what I was doing wrong, argh.
It’s fair to say I am pretty discouraged right now. I have a post I’ve been working on about my proposed solutions to the budget meltdown. Underneath, I am sort of cosmically disgusted. What do we make of progressive women who will not support their own? What do we make of women who will support conservative and conservative light. Both Obama and McCain are surrounded, advisor wise, by the people directly responsible for the financial implosion in this country. Neither of them shows any indication of making the kind of changes the country needs. I hopefully read a letter from Starhawk this morning to find her supporting not McKinney but Obama.
I’m with Dorothy Allison. Where is the country where women love women? Why is it that the more progressive and committed you are, the more your own people ignore or pretend to ignore or reject you or attempt to hurt you. Especially in favor of conservative men, be they Republican or Democrat.
Honestly, I’m about ready to hang it up, this blog, my websites, my writings online, my organizing online. I can only presume that in fact, most people really don’t want change. I don’t really know, given how hard I have to work just to support my family and my farm, whether being face to face every day with this level of cynicism, apathy, antagonism, disfunction, disturbed, psychotic behavior, is worth it, let alone the stalking and other vaguely scary stuff. I just don’t know if it’s worth it. What do you do when your own community would rather support conservative men, and yes, I mean Obama. Because they got mad at you once. Or you disagree on some nuance of something. As though if they knew Obama or McCain personally, they wouldn’t be writing enraged posts daily about the latest horrifically anti-progressive thing either had said or done. Or have women simply given up. They figure women will never support women or true progressives in large numbers, so they cave, again, as they have for so, so so so long now. When do you just give it up, you know?
Heart,
I just read your post, and I don’t know what to say, but hang in there. Which, isn’t really encouraging or advice, and I’ve personally found a bit offensive when told!
I just wanted to respond and let you know that there *are* womyn who read you and support you.
I guess you’re going to have to figure out for yourself if it’s worth it to continue doing the online work you’ve been doing, perhaps with a cost/benefit analysis. Or, just by spending some time in nature meditating and looking into your heart.
It seems that anyone who rather puts themselves “out there” in the blogosphere, as you certainly have done, and even more, does her best to think for herself, presenting radical, pro-woman ideas, is going to get verbally bruised. Why do we, as women, do this to our own? What if we said, “no more” and did not allow women to be attacked for views, for changing opinions and for whatever specific reasons women are supporting Mister Obama.
Feminism is about sisterhood, bonding with one another right, not supporting a conservative man (and I would agree Obama is conservative).
I don’t know if women want change, either. Mainstream women, that is, and even some liberal feminist types. The viciousness directed at Palin is horrifying, and then I hear from both men and women that they’re NOT being sexist after making comments about Palin having too many children (would rather not get into specific comments…ugh). In supporting your campaign, or McKinney’s, or any third party candidate, or choosing to “opt out” of the system women are given an opportunity to stand up for what we believe and know from our experience to be true. And supportive a progressive, feminist platform gives women a chance to come together and talk about what matters. Maybe women in the U.S. believe revolution “can’t” happen because we’ve had this stupid two-party system for so long. I don’t know…and I’m confused why anyone would believe Obama is going to bring real change–just look at his platform on his website!
I didn’t plan to write all this at all; it just sort of poured out.
Of course, I and so many others love reading your words, but ultimately you must do what is best for you. When you get to feeling better you’ll figure out what that is.
Hmm. Sorry about that, Heart. I expected to get an email notifying me of your registration, but if I did, I missed it. As a result, you had no permissions. You should now be a Global Moderator.
I also read that letter from Starhawk. I imagine she is trying to take a practical approach. Why she thinks Obama “is headed in the right direction, toward the future,” I cannot say. I think that is wishful thinking, and if this debate did not make that clear, I do not know what will. It almost seems she is saying, a candidate with principles is unelectable. That may seem true, but in my eyes, a candidate who betrays most principles important to me is not headed in the right direction. I imagine Starhawk thinks, or at least hopes, Obama is a principled politician. I was disgusted by his performance tonight, but not surprised. Commentators are saying he held his own in the area where McCain supposedly held an advantage, foreign policy. Yeah, he held his own; he can talk the warmonger talk with the worst of them. He even had the gall to deny he threatened to attack Pakistan.
Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
That is not talking about attacking Pakistan? I think the people of Pakistan would disagree. Obama also said, You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.
Just how does he propose to do that? This is heading in the right direction?
Now, what I’ve said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put — provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.
This is his vaunted timetable, refined so that in 16 months we SHOULD be able to REDUCE our combat troops? His fans have been saying his plan would end that war in 16 months! How does he propose to crush al Qaeda? Start a war with Pakistan? The next President might well inherit a war with Pakistan, the way things are going already! If not, it will be despite this reckless rhetoric from Obama!
I do not know if people really believe Obama would bring real change, but they seem to be comparing him to Bush, and in that light, he seems to represent progress. He may be more sensible than Bush or McCain, but that is a far cry from headed in the right direction. I imagine many women figure Obama is the best that can be expected. Considering how messed up the Green Party has been, this may seem the realistic approach. I see nothing realistic in rushing headlong toward the inglorious end of this empire, but I think Obama is masterfully playing on our hopes and fears, so many think he is what they hope he is. Starhawk says, Obama may or may not be all we hope. She knows better, but I think her fear of McCain has gotten the better of her. This is a terrifying time, but making decisions out of fear never makes things better.
One way or another, the Democratic Party is self-destructing. People may not yet be convinced its promises are hollow, same old tripe masquerading as change, progress, hope, whatever one wants to call it, it is all shameless posturing. Obama has no real answers, but he certainly is skillful at snowing people. Charm and erudition cannot substitute for principle, but in the reality most people see, principles and politics do not mix. Principles are seen as utopian, beyond the realm of practical politics. This is a sure recipe for disaster, and we are witnessing the results. The curious thing is that a variation on the standard recipe for disaster is considered practical, progressive, real change. Corporate media can allow no other perspective to gain traction. The survival of the corporate empire is at stake, so it will do its damnedest to circumscribe the range of acceptable political perspectives.
The Peace Candidate is Anything But…
Starhawk posted an essay Thursday on her site, explaining why she will vote for Obama. Heart alluded to being discouraged by that essay, which was sent out on the Global Sisterhood Network list. I posted this in response:
I also read that letter from S…
Well I’m sure many posters here have seen the piece already, but I was disappointed to read Robin Morgan’s piece supporting Obama’s candidacy and discouraging third party voting.
I really don’t understand why more women don’t go for the third parties if they’re going to vote. I really, really, really don’t…
Aletha, thanks for linking to the piece! It’s fabulous; so true what you wrote re: every empire eventually falter. I remember being in history class the day Bush after the 2000 elections, and one girl in the class, referring to our recent lessons, simply said, “well, every empire collapses sooner or later!”
A brief announcement about voting for Heart. There have not been enough registrations to qualify her on any ballot, to my knowledge. Registration deadlines are fast approaching. Some states only count votes for write in candidates on a eligibility list. Registering Free Soil is the best chance writing her in will be counted. If not, that could still make a statement as none of the above, a voter voting, but not for President, which in numbers are unusual and noteworthy regardless of cause. If one feels like causing a ruckus, one could ask at the polling location to see the list and why Heart is not on there, or how to write in the Free Soil slate of candidates. Her campaign also did not collect enough money to qualify as official for FEC regulations, so it was harder to get her on votesmart, for instance. Wikipedia censored her, after great fanfare of character assassination. Nobody has the time or energy to volunteer this campaign needs to reach a vast audience. Nobody in the mainstream or left seems to show any interest, even after being approached. If one thinks Obama deserves support, good luck, not after backing off too much of what he promised to get support. He was marketed one way for the primaries, but a new way now.
Women could show a bit of that rebellious spark, the muted fury of having to settle for the best conventional wisdom has to offer, politics of fear as usual in this escalating crisis, depression and more war looming, ideas out of the mainstream ignored or ridiculed. Obama is backed by the usual suspects and not even that liberal, except perhaps as compared to the rest of his party. Is this the best politics has to offer? If Obama wins and performs as I expect, perhaps rebellion will catch fire and throw all the bums out. If he loses, the Democratic Party is worthless. It is not an opposition party, but it is a foil to deflect changes that really are needed.
I suppose I should not be surprised at Robin Morgan, after having to lament her fervent support of Hillary Clinton back in March. This may be a logical progression, but it seems she is giving the lie to that saying of Gloria Steinem, Women may be the one group that grows more radical with age.
The Women’s Media Center blog reposted that article
Robin Morgan: “When Sisterhood Is Suicide and Other Late Night Thoughts”
Several commenters took Ms. Morgan to task for supporting Obama while ignoring Cynthia McKinney, as well as stretching facts to bash Palin. Even she thinks Palin is an enemy of sex education. How she thinks playing along with Democratic politics of fearmongering about those scary Republicans will help women is beyond me. It seems if McCain intended to fire up the divisions this election has created between feminists, he chose well.
Yeah, I got the e-mail that included this link, Aletha. I haven’t been up to responding anywhere including here. That is the worst thing I’ve ever read of Robin Morgan’s. Extremely discouraging.
And thanks be to the goddess on high that you are here, Aletha, to remind me I’m not seeing things and I’m not the only one.
Heart, this blog is so important. I wish I had money to help support it.
I didn’t know about Morgan’s article and I don’t think I can read it.
So few people know about Cynthia; a very lefty friend of mine in Texas screamed into the phone when I told her she was running.
She decided to vote Green instead of not vote at all.
I don’t understand Starhawk - she talks like an anarchist and votes like a democrat. In 2004 she was for John Kerry.
Exactly my thoughts about Starhawk, Julia. It’s like she gives the one-two punch and you’re all excited, yay, she’s going for the revolutionary solution, taking the radical path, and then…. she caves. :(
And thanks for those good words.
I decided to respond to that blog entry. After these debates, I felt I could not allow it to go unchallenged. McCain may be frightening, but Obama is a pseudo-feminist greenwashing warmonger who does not deserve to benefit from being anybody but Bush/McCain.
Thanks for the link to Morgan’s blog post, Aletha. It was so great to see that many of the respondents did not agree with Morgan’s post. If Obama/Biden wins (i.e. McCain/Palin loses), is this a real victory for women? I can only imagine the misogyny I will hear from “liberal” women and men no matter the outcome this November.
I also appreciate the info re: write-in votes, as I was not aware that these are not counted unless a candidate has not been on the ballet.
I’m too exhausted to say much more now, but I just wanted to say I appreciate the fact that there are SOME women speaking out on behalf of the severe sexism Palin is facing. If I read one more negative editorial about her (by a woman, of course) I will SCREAM!!!!
Hi Aletha,
I’m prompted by your response to my post on Planned Parenthood founder Gloria Feldt’s website to ask you a question. As you could see, she and I have been dueling for days about her references to Sarah Palin - which are shamefully sexist, in my opinion. As a long-time feminist and former officer of NOW in a large metro city, I am horrified by almost universal feminist leadership’s misogynistic attacks on a woman candidate.
http://www.gloriafeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blog/ then access her two posts “What Has Sarah Learned” and “When Appearances Matter and Corrupt.”
Gloria is a major feminist leader and quite accessible through her website - other feminist leaders tend to hide behind posting on other’s sites. I seem to be one of the few persons calling her on her sexism so I much appreciated your post.
You commented on one of the more recent posts of mine which I have cross posted here in the event others on your site want some context to my question to you.
You say you disagree with my approach to defeating Obama and cleaning up the Democratic Party. I’m really curious to know how you disagree.
Apparently you believe in third party candidates but the numbers clearly indicate that this approach helps Obama win the presidency. I don’t see that result discussed on your blog unless I’ve missed it, and that’s entirely possible.
I’d appreciate your dialogue on the issue.
_______________
My Oct. 9, 2008 comment on the Heartfeldt website:
I cannot imagine living in a society where there is not even an island of principled people. The Obama campaign, the Democratic Party Leadership, the mainstream media - and now feminist leadership have all thrown fairness and principle out the window. Is that the society I want to live in? No.
Rewarding unprincipled people by joining them and then hoping to change them from within is a fool’s errand. Why should corrupt people change once they have all the power when they had the audacity to abuse you when they were merely seeking power?
Obama and Company will be so emboldened by winning the presidency that nothing will be sacred. As you well know, corruption breeds corruption.
Yes, I prefer McCain’s brain-dead Republican crowd to Obama’s shamefully corrupt misogynistic crowd. Why? Because it is a temporary situation. Fours years of deadlock with a divided government. If Obama wins this, he and the people he brings with him will be entrenched in power for a decade or more.
Try visualizing this future with what Barack Obama brings to our living rooms: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, a host of radical “black liberationist” reverends, a bunch of other unsavory, mysterious characters, a slew of power hungry misogynistic despots like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and a jubilant press corps who are no more than a hoard of partisan hyenas. And now you can add discredited feminist leaders to the list who seem to have adopted Obama’s “win at all costs - principles be damned” methods.
I’m not going to close my eyes to the screaming truths of what’s happening in this country. I’m a pragmatist first, a no nonsense person. And I’m not afraid of the hard decisions.
I know when it’s time to pull the plug, drown the rats and start over with a clean slate. THAT TIME IS NOW with the Democratic Party. THE WAY is to keep them out of power and rid ourselves of them while they are weak and powerless under a Republican President.
As a long-time feminist and former officer of NOW in a large metro city, I am horrified by almost universal feminist leadership’s misogynistic attacks on a woman candidate.
Yes! And THANK YOU!
Me too. I am sick of it, repulsed by it, but sadly, it’s something I needed to see. It’s what’s real. This is the “feminist” movement that we have.
Ugh.
And welcome.
Interesting piece A1.
But this:
Try visualizing this future with what Barack Obama brings to our living rooms: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, a host of radical “black liberationist” reverends, a bunch of other unsavory, mysterious characters, a slew of power hungry misogynistic despots like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and a jubilant press corps who are no more than a hoard of partisan hyenas. And now you can add discredited feminist leaders to the list who seem to have adopted Obama’s “win at all costs - principles be damned” methods.
I am a 60s radical. I attended the University of Washington beginning in 1969, had a child with, then married and had another child with, a member of the Seattle Black Panther Party, with whom I was an activist. I did all the marches, closed down I-5, closed down the UW campus, went to all the sit-ins and demonstrations, have sat in and demonstrated all my life, worked and lived in inner city Cincinnati as a volunteer the summer after race riots tore the place apart (summer of 69). I have been a civil rights/peace/anti-war activist all of my life, in all of my various reinventions of myself (long story).
So I have to heartily disagree with your characterizations there. I think that Jeremiah Wright has stunningly great things to say and I blogged about that a while ago. I hate his 60s-style leftist misogyny, of course, to wit, his horrific and inexcusable statement about Natalee Holloway. But he says some GREAT things– things I think Obama should have said and should be saying, things I have said, things I think any leader in these times should say.
Bill Ayers is no issue, in my opinion Tony Rezko is no issue either.
So I don’t agree that these are “unsavory mysterious characters.” I think the idea that they are is a reflection of how conservative and Right our entire culture is. These guys were practically mainstream back in the day! Not joking.
I especially find the reference to “host of black liberationist reverends” unfortunate and disturbing. Some of these men have been central to very great movements which freed a whole lot of people and inspired many more. These men are laughing stocks or objects of contempt or kicked to the curb now in the same way we, as radical feminists/lesbian separatists are: because the country has gone horrifically Right-to-fascist, it’s lost its heart and soul, and ideals and values like love, compassion, sharing the wealth, peace, nonviolence, redemption, unity are ideals and values a whole lot of people mock, mostly because, I believe, they don’t have any hope for anything better than this hellhole we have, that is all most of them have ever known.
So we disagree. Nevertheless, welcome anyway.
Okay, I see.
I’m more to the center of where you are on politics even though I’ve been in the streets myself during the late sixties and early seventies. Difference being that I advocated working from a moderate position.
This allowed us to unify 17 women’s groups in our state representing 55,000 members to fight for the ERA in the mid seventies. It was a unique coalition of groups including a couple of lesbian alliances, a socialist workers party group advocating for abortion rights, NOW, The Junior League, BPW and The League of Women Voters. It was our moderate advocacy that made that powerful diversity happen. (To be honest, we pulled it off by learning the trick of moderate manner and rhetoric covering pretty radical actions.)
I’ve always appreciated the extreme groups as I believe the margins dictate the center. So we left-leaning centrists depend indirectly on the radical left to get us where we need to be - without being held accountable for the radicalism. Therefore we’re more able to effect change with moderates. That may offend your sense of idealism, but that strategy rarely demands compromise of principles if worked smartly and it’s extremely effective.
Nonetheless, I’ll have to disagree that radicalism is what the country needs in the White House right now. The electorate is not there by any stretch, and pragmatically, Obama will not be able to radicalize the country, only polarize it more by attempting to radicalize it.
The system is too broken and the county too rigid in its left-right political positions to accept such massive change. We need a couple of interim administrations to clean up the government’s act in a more gradual way that does not cause freak-out on either the right or the left. That’s where Hillary Clinton would have been perfect.
Radicalism aside, we seem to agree that Obama is a bad choice and rewarding him for his lying and misogyny and lack of principles not what we want.
So how does not voting or voting for a third party candidate effect the defeat of Obama? In fact, as I said previously, it seems to help elect him.
I’m not asking that in a critical way. I’m genuinely interested in the logic of those choices.
<i>So how does not voting or voting for a third party candidate effect the defeat of Obama? In fact, as I said previously, it seems to help elect him.</i>
Until this last week, I would have agreed that voting third-party would only help Obama as it could split what might could be a majority of McCain/Palin votes, giving Obama the majority of votes after all. At this time, however, the presidency is Obama’s so, in my opinion, a third party vote is a way to voice dissatisfaction with the major parties and their players. (By the way, I don’t think Free Soil is on the Texas ballot so I suppose I’ll vote McKinney as she is on the ballot.)
What scares me most about Obama is how good he sounds. No wonder throngs of people are crazy about him. He sounds like a populist candidate. I heard some clips from the last debate, and if I didn’t know so much about his political background, I’d be excited about him, too. Most Americans don’t research online, don’t listen to non-corporate media, don’t read this blog (unforunately).
My biggest worry about this (s)election is that people will think
Obama’s with us, and go back to sleep. It may be years before they realize the truth. It’s hard to get masses to go against a leader they adore, or to even take a hard look at him.
CoolAunt -
I’m not ready to concede to Obama. There are way too many variables in play. Too many possible hidden voting blocs, too many undecided independents, too much softness in the women’s vote, too much about the polls that is suspect, too much history of elections tightening quickly in the last few days…whew! Enough.
Oh, and the GOP is notoriously nasty when the end comes. There’s that shoe left to drop.
I have to believe this election will be like the last two - a squeaker coming down to a handful of votes. If you are in a swing state, I hope you re-consider you options given that one vote could make the difference in the electoral count.
For those people in states safely red or blue, I say register your protest with a third party vote without hesitation.
Hey, LindaA1. I imagine you have figured out by now that this is not my blog, and I am not the candidate for President I referenced. I am a few years younger than Heart. I could tell your political approach is relatively moderate compared to that of mine or Heart, partly because of that paragraph of yours Heart disputed, but until recently I would not have said the same about Robin Morgan. I really do not know what has gotten into her. Now she thinks Obama reflects her politics? So disheartening.
Apparently you believe in third party candidates but the numbers clearly indicate that this approach helps Obama win the presidency.
I am curious what gives you that impression. If you are thinking of Bob Barr or Ron Paul, I could understand your point. My point is that if even a few percent of women were to defect from the Democratic Party, the Democrats are finished. They are nothing without the gender gap. They have amply demonstrated they deserve no loyalty from women, so I think this is still a realistic possibility, even though Heart did not get on any ballots. This stock market crash has given Obama a leg up, but he could still lose if a number of women decide to vote on principle instead of fear of what McCain/Palin might do to the Supreme Court.
I noted that not only did the President of the Los Angeles NOW chapter Shelley Mandel introduce Gov. Palin at the rally in Carson last weekend, she endorsed her. Shades of Tammy Bruce, who was also a President of this same NOW chapter, and has also endorsed Gov. Palin.
I am also curious, what gives you the impression Obama intends to attempt to radicalize this country? That makes me think you define radical much differently than I do. The word can have many meanings, but to me, that Congress is more unpopular than Bush tells me this country is not stuck on political reality, the rigid left-right dichotomy within which the powers that be attempt to constrain politics. I think if the media stranglehold on acceptable perspectives could be broken, many people are ready to listen to radical alternatives. I think most people can tell conventional wisdom has no answers to the mess it has created.
Hi Aletha -
You say “My point that if even a few percent of women were to defect…the Democrats are finished.”
My fear, and one proved to be realistic by the last two elections - especially 2000, is that a handful of votes could end up handing the election to the Democrats in swing states. I’d like to see protesters limit their third party protest votes to non-swing states to be safe.
Analysts on both sides predict that the polls will twist and turn several times before the election. I believe that is correct given the softness of the independent and women’s support for Obama. From what I can tell, internal polls of the campaigns indicate this to be true as well which is why the political hysteria seems to be mounting in both camps. This means whoever is lucky enough to be “up” on election day will win. It’s that close. Ergo my fear that every single vote for McCain will have a crucial impact.
Yes, I’m sure we have different ideas of what is radical. I’ve been in organizational leadership positions many times in my life, founded organizations and spent a good bit of time in organizational consulting. My take on what is radical is split between my personal philosophy and my political philosophy and they are quite different in degrees.
What I know about organizational politics is that you can move a diverse collective body only so far and so fast before they balk, then retreat. That’s what we experience in this country in our election cycles - and it’s totally destructive to any kind of reasonable progress. It’s a non-stop cycle of antipathy from conservative to liberal.
I think change has to be excruciatingly gradual in such a broken system of polar opposites like the one we have now - short of a catastrophic event that trumps our individual leanings.
Obama comes out of a radicalized environment. I know the territory because I’ve been in it - albeit the moderate voice in the mix. Both liberals and conservatives are passionately convinced that they each have the correct belief system and that it should be implemented for the greater good. And each believes the other side is stupid.
As an organizational veteran, I know that in such an environment, you can only govern from the middle and make small shifts in one direction or the other, then wait for the shift to be internalized to an acceptable comfort level, then introduce a little more movement. With each step, you can accelerate the change a little but it takes skill to know where the balk line is.
It takes time, but eventually you get to solid ground with a content collective body.
Hillary Clinton knew the strategy and had the support system in place to make it happen. Obama doesn’t have a clue and sees massive change as the solution to our problems. How he thinks this can work when half the country is vehemently in opposition to him escapes me. He believes he can force the change on the nonbelievers and that it will eventually be accepted. That is a simplistic misread of the country and perpetuates the disgruntled environment we live in.
Yes, we all want change - but we all want change our way. It will take a decade or more of chipping away at the massive convoluted mess we call government to make change happen in acceptable ways.
McCain in a deadlocked one term is the fastest way to get to a Hillary Clinton presidency. And she is the only politician I see who knows how to really effect change in this polarized society.
Welcome, Linda A1, I really appreciate the clarity with which you are able to explain the process of change and what we need to do now in this country. I have been living in mortal terror of admitting to anyone that I will probably vote for McCain/Palin for the reasons you gave, which will be the first time I ever cast a ballot for a republican in my life, but no more. If I do, I will also vote all democratic down ticket.
Thanks, Branjor. Believe me I have butterflies about voting Republican myself - I’ve never done it and never thought I would.
Luckily, we can be certain of a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate - some predict as much as 60/40 in the Senate. That keeps Roe off the table since the Senate has to approve a McCain appointment. A Democratically controlled Congress also guarantees deadlock. McCain will be a one-term President which makes him basically a lame duck from the start.
A loss by Obama in an unlosable election year will infuriate the centrists of the Democratic Party and it’s likely there will be a “off with their heads” moment for the Obama, Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Brazile and Company. Hillary Clinton would become the unofficial head of the Party.
National healthcare for everybody would be the great loss under McCain - except there’s nothing to keep Hillary Clinton from structuring a universal health care system during the four year term of McCain with the blessing of the Democratic Congress. It would take four years to structure it anyway - even under an Obama administration. PRESIDENT Clinton could implement her national healthcare system on the first day of her presidency in 2012. No time lost.
Certainly there is damage McCain can do as a conservative but it’s limited. And it pales by comparison to the damage an Obama presidency will bring with it - in his inept governance (of lack thereof) and the psychological impact of corrupt misogynist politics paying off.
Given that I live in a liberal environment, I often get accused of being a conservative and a traitor to the Democratic Party and feminism for my choice to vote McCain-Palin. I find this an amusing short-sighted view since Hillary supporters voting for Obama are the ones compromising themselves to a candidate who abuses them, uses them and forces them to betray their principles.
I see my choice as the more courageous move - the decision to say no to compromised principles, the decision to flat-out revolt against corruption and endure whatever sacrifice must be made temporarily for the greater good in the long run.
Voting for a woman-hating republican (and John McCain is unabashedly, unreservedly one) is voting for a woman-hating republican. All of the strategic thinking and wishing in the world doesn’t make it NOT choosing a woman-hating republican over third-party women candidates.
I think fear of embarrassment is an entirely appropriate emotion in such a case, swing state or no.
I don’t see a protest in refusing to vote against one’s values by voting against one’s values. Unless, of course, one isn’t.
Hi funnie,
I can only say that politics is a system in which strategies dominate, not ideals. Your take on this is a purely ideological one. We can pretend all day long that ideals rule in this society, but that is about as successful as tossing a plump tuna into a tank full of sharks.
Most politicians depend solely on strategy. The better ones work hard to navigate their way through the morass by trying to combine strategy AND ideals.
I assume you are a third party candidate voter. You are certain to face defeat in the election. Your strategy is not to win, it’s to protest. If you want to be a purist about it, why isn’t voting for certain defeat not “voting against one’s values.”
OR - if your vote is to accept certain defeat as a means to the end of HOLDING ON to your values, how is that different from my voting for an opposition candidate as a means to the end of holding on to my values?
Is certain defeat a higher goal than the goal of temporarily accepting a hamstrung president in order to defeat a corrupt candidate? Especially since the process likely clears the way for Hillary Clinton to get to the oval office in four years?
Neither of us has a perfect option. I respect your form of protest and your strategy but it’s not the only one available
Oh, and funnie, I never said I was fearful or embarrassed by my vote for McCain-Palin. On the contrary, I quite proud of my decision. The “butterflies” I refer to are there because there ARE certain risks associated with having another Republican president and I will be helping elect one.
My butterflies are always stilled, however, when I consider the alternative of the hard knot I’ll have in my stomach for the next four - make that likely eight - years if Obama wins.
So the choice is a woman-hating Republican or a woman-hating Democrat? How about two strong women? Vote McKinney/Clemente!
Our votes may not even count anymore in this country - I’m voting my values and as many women as possible from Pres., VP, to mayor and City Council.
Re-registering as Green made me happy for the first time in this campaign.
Hi Julia -
I’m happy for you that you’ve found a choice for this election that gives you satisfaction. But I lived in Cynthia McKinney’s district in Georgia. I wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstances.
That aside - I think your characterization of McCain as a woman-hater is a bit over the top. He’s an old school sexist, but a woman-hater? I don’t think so. And as much as I detest Obama’s treatment of women, I don’t think he’s a “woman-hater” either.
But neither man gives a rat’s rump about women politically - that’s true.
I’m not voting for McCain because I accept his politics, quite the contrary. To me, he’s merely a political pawn who will be shackled (hopefully) by the Democratic majority in Congress. His main function is to keep Obama out of the oval office - to keep the seat warm for Hillary to return in 2012.
I respect your choice to vote Green. However, I’m wired differently and think more pragmatically about politics. I can see my choice paying off big in four years with a Hillary presidency and a reformed Democratic Party.
I’m genuinely interested in how you feel a vote for the Green Party will change the corruption in politics - especially in the Democratic Party - and when?
All things considered, I believe any vote I make other than McCain is basically a vote for Barack Obama. There’s no way I’d go there - not even indirectly.
LindaA1, you say you know the territory of a radicalized environment, but it is not at all clear what you mean by that. Then you went on to talk about the dogmatic views of liberals and conservatives. This blog is a radical feminist environment. Liberal and conservative are virtually meaningless here, two sides of the same mainstream coin. What you describe as a political morass is the condition of political reality, circumscribed by conventional wisdom, as are your alternatives. Strategy does dominate political reality, reducing ideals and principles into meaningless slogans. As Virginia Woolf explained why a woman needs a room of her own, a feminist revolution needs a party of its own.
The Democratic Party in recent times has always thought it has the winning strategy, namely triangulation, playing it safe down the middle, of which Bill Clinton was the master. You may call this realistic, but it is a losing strategy. Clinton only won because Ross Perot made the most of his grudge against Republicans. Democrats took Congress last time because Republicans have dug themselves into such a deep hole, empty promises of ending the war on Iraq convinced many voters to give Democrats a chance. They made so much of that chance, Congress is less popular than Bush. Democrats may not have such a lock on Congress as you think. You say Roe will be off the table because of the Democratic majority? Not all Democratic Senators are pro-choice, and those who were made very little fuss over the Bush appointees. Voters have a choice of two sinking ships that have controlled politics for far too long, and both must share responsibility for the incredible mess they have created and fostered. You speak of flat-out revolt against corruption. What makes you think Hillary Clinton is above that?
It will take a decade or more of chipping away at the massive convoluted mess we call government to make change happen in acceptable ways.
If you mean acceptable to the powers that be, no doubt. People are fed up with what you call acceptable ways. This is why Obama can speak so loftily of hope and change without getting laughed out of the room. People are so desperate for change, they convince themselves another slick master of political strategy means what they want to believe he means. You speak of Obama seeing massive change as the solution to our problems? It is hard for me to imagine what you are talking about. Political reality is mainly credible to politicians and pundits. The catastrophic event you refer to as a possible game-changer has been developing for awhile. People are seething. They can sense something coming down the line much worse than Hurricane Katrina or this stock market crash. They want a realistic alternative. The media does its damnedest to make certain people think there is none, as if political reality is the best democracy can offer, nothing else is practical. The media has been rather successful in that endeavor, convincing most people the challengers are just a nuisance, only significant when the race is so close that a nuisance challenger can tip it, or when the challenger has so much money, like Ross Perot, he can doom one of the candidates. The media gatekeepers see to it a new voice like Heart is not given the time of day, so nobody else could be persuaded to take that leap of faith to run on her ticket, and who knows how many could be persuaded to bother registering. This is the sorry state of political reality. There is nothing practical about political reality, which is all about maintaining this corporate empire while systematically destroying the capacity of this planet to sustain life. This is the practice of the ideology of subordinating women and Nature to the will of absolute power corrupted absolutely. This may be the accepted way of the old boy network, but practical it is not.
Obama said in the first debate: There has never been a country on Earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority.
See, this is what passes for practical politics. The economy is declining for many reasons, but one big one is that this country is trying to maintain military superiority. No mainstream politician will question that it should, because since the end of the Cold War, it has been taken for granted that USA should be the lone military superpower. That this is unsustainable and leads to ever greater abuses of power is obvious, but not within the rigid boundaries of acceptable political discourse. Thus a totally impractical doctrine of maintaining an empire is considered practical, while pointing out the obvious flaws is considered hopelessly idealistic and impractical. The system is all backwards and fundamentally corrupt to the core, yet no mainstream politician dares to suggest more than superficial reforms to keep it going, including Hillary Clinton. This is not the best democracy has to offer, but it is the best working within the mainstream has to offer. Women need a party of our own.
Aletha -
Thanks for the comprehensive and thoughtful comment.
You say “…you say you know the territory of a radicalized environment, but it is not at all clear what you mean by that.”
I was a college student and peace activist during the Vietnam War. I moved to Atlanta months after Martin Luther King was killed and became a leader in the women’s movement there. We had the unique advantage of learning the techniques of activism directly from Dr. King’s friends and followers - at a time when they were grieving and yes, angry. I attended King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church on numerous occasions so I was not at all surprised by the rhetoric in Obama’s church.
I also lived for a while in San Francisco where I immersed myself in the women’s community (mostly with women spirituality writers) and got wrapped up in the eighties re-birth of the environmental movement there.
I’ve always been appreciative and passionately curious about the more radicalized elements of the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the environmental movement. I have enjoyed living in an environment of women separatists and therefore understand something of the attraction to black separatism.
But as I’ve said before here, I’m more pragmatically wired - and while a radical right and a radical left are necessary to determine the political center, it is at that center where most change is actually implemented. I like the action in the center.
You say “This blog is a radical feminist environment. Liberal and conservative are virtually meaningless here.”
I’m not sure how liberal and conservative can be meaningless in a political environment - especially in an election year. While persons may choose to live as radicals and/or separatists, they cannot - in reality - be altogether separate from the society they live in. You have no alternative but to live under the policies of a governing body which will either be liberal or conservative. And you can’t be more unhappy about that than I am.
You say “…a feminist revolution needs a party of its own.”
Agreed. But for this election cycle, we don’t have one.
You say, “The Democratic Party in recent times has always thought it has the winning strategy…playing it safe down the middle…You may call this realistic, but it is a losing strategy.”
Being a centrist Democrat really has little to do with playing it safe down the middle. I have leftist philosophies and support liberal policies. I’ve adopted centrist techniques as the most efficient mode of getting those policies implemented. It would be difficult to characterize a Hillary supporter’s vote for John McCain as playing it safe down the middle.
You say “Democrats may not have such a lock on Congress as you think. You say Roe will be off the table because of the Democratic majority? Not all Democratic Senators are pro-choice…”
And not all Republicans are pro-life. I have not seen a compilation of who is which but we know the votes break down pretty much along partisan lines. And there may be a much as a 60/40 Democratic split in the Senate in 2009.
Further, just because a senator is pro-life personally and politically does not mean he or she would vote against Roe. Some feel Roe is established law and would hesitate to strike it down. Others are pro-life but their constituents are heavily pro-choice. Democrat Harry Reid, for example, is pro-life but his constituents are 64% pro-choice. Given he has the cover of “established law,” which way do you think he would vote on the striking down of Roe?
I think the endurance of Roe is a safe bet.
You say “Voters have a choice of two sinking ships that have controlled politics for far too long, and both must share responsibility for the incredible mess they have created and fostered. You speak of flat-out revolt against corruption. What makes you think Hillary Clinton is above that?”
In an earlier post, I talked about my take on how change in such a polarized and diverse society can only come about gradually - in the absence of a catastrophic event (like a nuclear attack). That means starting with a politician who is acceptable in a mainstream political environment, but who embraces more liberal philosophies. AND who has the political skill to implement the policies that reflect that liberal agenda in slow, measured acceptable ways.
Obama is like an unskilled liberal bull in a china shop. Further, given his behavior, I don’t believe for a minute that he cares about implementing anything save what furthers his career.
Hillary is not perfect either. She’s a practical politician. But I believe she has a genuine desire to make the world a better place if for nothing else but to enhance her legacy as someone in mold of Eleanor Roosevelt.
I don’t want to hog the blog here. So I’m about to move on to other blogs to posture my “centrist” points on voting McCain.
However, I have asked what the logic behind voting third party is? How does it effect real change in the political environment we live in? Is it simply a means of symbolic protest with no intention of effecting change?
Those are genuine questions, not twisted hyperbole.
…it is at that center where most change is actually implemented.
That is true, because the mainstream has monopolized political power. However, change must be conceived before it can be implemented. The center is notorious for ripping off any ideas of radicals it can use for its own purposes. I say liberal and conservative are virtually meaningless because they do not mean what they used to mean. The local Air America station has a tag line, progressive, the new mainstream. This illustrates my point. There is nothing progressive about what is now called progressive; it has gone mainstream. Liberals are now as hawkish as anyone, and conservatives as big spenders as anyone. Neither have any problem with this budding police state, aka Patriot Act and the gutting of the Fourth Amendment in the recent FISA bill. Some have gone so far as to say the policies of Nixon would be considered liberal by contemporary standards.
As for playing it safe down the middle, I was referring to the triangulation strategy which has dominated Democratic politics since at least Bill Clinton, not your choice to vote for McCain, or the strategies of centrist Democratic voters or activists. The leadership took impeachment off the table. It refused to cut off funding for the war on Iraq (what is with this euphemism war in Iraq, anyway?), all the while blaming Republicans for being unable to get anything done. It went along with this bailout of reckless investors, the FISA “compromise”, lifting the moratorium on new offshore drilling, subsidizing ghastly substitutes for real action on clean energy like clean coal and new nuclear power plants. I could go on, but the point is, you think this has little to do with playing it safe? How about muscling a pro-choice woman out of the race for the Senate seat of Rick Santorum, in favor of rising Democratic star Bob Casey, given time to make a speech at the convention?
Senators will probably not be voting to strike down Roe, unless Republicans actually try to pass a constitutional amendment. They will be voting on new Supreme Court justices, and though they had the numbers to filibuster the Bush appointees into oblivion, they laid down and played dead. If Samuel Alito was not bad enough for them to make a stand, who would be? He was confirmed 58-42. There is no excuse for that.
Climate change is progressing far faster than anyone predicted. If much more of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica falls into the ocean, there will be more than just a few islands and coastal villages drowned. This is not happening at a slow measured pace, and it is only one of the many ways the ecology is collapsing. I do not think slow measured change will make a dent in these trends, and by the time people wake up, it could well be too late to do much about it.
As for the logic behind voting third party, it is more than symbolic protest, regardless of whether it affects the outcome directly. Cindy Sheehan is not exactly third party, running as an independent (who refused to acknowledge an offer of endorsement), but she could win, and that would mean a new Speaker of the House. To me, that is a big deal. If she wins, or if enough people defy conventional wisdom to cost Obama the election, you do not think that would effect real change? I think it would certainly shake the Democratic Party to its roots. I think if Obama were to lose this election because five percent or so vote third party, the Democratic Party will splinter beyond recovery and fade into history. That did not happen in 2000 because Nader got too few votes, many of whom would not have voted for Gore in any event, to claim there was a signficant revolt brewing. The Democratic Party could not demonize, explain away, or recover from a substantial revolt, especially of women. That would turn political reality on its head, transforming the political landscape for good.
Aletha -
For the purposes of this election, we’re really not that far apart on idealogies and takes on the political environment - certainly not enough to argue the differences. We pretty much share the opinion that we have to step out of politics as usual to make change happen.
But we differ on how to approach it. As I said before, I respect your third party vote choice but I do believe voting McCain is the best alternative to beating Obama and the Democratic Party.
Let’s just say I hope we’re both right. I hope McCain gets a good many Hillary votes and I hope third party candidates lower Obama’s numbers enough to defeat him.
Meanwhile, I think a Bob Barr website will be my next stop.
Thanks for the dialogue.